That’s slightly more than attended a public meeting in a Cardiff hotel when he was standing for the leadership the first time round in 2015.

People hang out of their windows to listen to Jeremy Corbyn in Whitchurch

Conventional wisdom says that people have no appetite for political meetings, but Corbyn has proved them wrong on multiple occasions.

How does he manage it?

Because he is an old-fashioned kind of politician who speaks in ways that politicians of the left did 100 years ago, long before the bland, technocratic, managerial kind of politician we get so frequently today.

Such blandness has created a political vacuum that has been picked up by Corbyn on the left, and by the likes of Nigel Farage on the right.

But while Farage resorts to the dog-whistle method of blaming immigrants for all social ills, Corbyn adopts class war rhetoric that most Labour politicians have shied away from for many years.

Read More

Rhodri Morgan always took the view that Labour should push radical policies as far as they could be pushed without frightening the horses – the horses being the powerful investors and currency speculators who can damage the prospects of any government that wants to bring real change to the social order.

As someone who comes from outside the mainstream of his party, Corbyn’s world view hasn’t been coloured by the worry that full-blooded socialist programmes will provoke a backlash not just from the voters, most of whom don’t see things the same way, but from those who are capable of inflicting real damage to the economy.

Nevertheless, there are many people who do share Corbyn’s view and who haven’t heard it articulated for a very long time from someone who holds as significant a position as leader of the opposition.

By virtue of his status, Corbyn has been able to enthuse many by talking the language they want to hear.

Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn visiting Whitchurch in Cardiff

There is, however, an irony which undermines the reach of Corbyn’s appeal. While he devotes a lot of what he has to say to championing the causes of underdogs, most of his audience represent what might be described as the alternative middle class.

They’re not as a rule the kind of people who have an obsession with making money, buying houses too big for their needs and surrounding themselves with material possessions.

They adhere to the kind of community-based ideals that Corbyn extols in his speeches and genuinely care for those who are less privileged than they are.

But most of them aren’t vulnerable and exploited workers subsisting on insecure zero-hours contracts. Why weren’t there more of such real social victims at Whitchurch Common yesterday afternoon?

Impressive though the turnout was at Corbyn’s appearance in Cardiff, the sad fact is that only a minority of voters care enough about other people’s oppression to change their vote.

The majority of those in Corbyn’s audience were public sector workers of one kind and another – many, doubtless, from the caring and teaching professions, where empathy for those worse off is usually higher than average.

Nevertheless, it would do all voters good to contemplate the question posed by Corbyn. What kind of society do we want to live in – one rigged in favour of a wealthy few, or one where everyone gets a fair share of prosperity.

Most mainstream news outlets won’t portray the election choice in that way. The message – either overt or implied – will be that Theresa May is a strong leader able to steer us through Brexit while Corbyn is a wrecker who can’t even get his own MPs behind him, let alone the country. The people deserve better than this simplistic one-dimensional view.

It’s also not good enough to say the election is about Brexit. The referendum took place last year, and with the two main parties resolutely against a second referendum there is little chance of one happening.

Our responsibility as journalists is to analyse and scrutinise rigorously the manifesto commitments the parties make.

Do they stack up and what are their implications?

A little more of this, and a little less personal pillorying, could turn this election campaign into an important debate about our country’s future. It’s a debate that needs to happen.